Wakilii

Vicent Kafureka v Yowana Katorobo (Civil Appeal No.12 Of 1995) (Civil Appeal No.12 of 1995)

High Court · [2002] UGHC 79 · 2002 Appeal Dismissed AI-generated summary ↓ Download Pin to watchlist Add to matter
Jurisdiction
Uganda
Case Type
Civil appeal from Magistrate Grade 1 Mbarara, challenging ruling/order delivered on 19th June 1995 in Civil Suit No. 34/94
Decision
Appeal struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondent

Observed later treatment

Cited — treatment unverified cited in 1 (treatment unverified) Sequitur — Uganda’s citator · Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — not an assertion that this case is good law.

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

No adverse treatment recorded Cited 1 time with no adverse treatment recorded; not yet tested on the merits. Derived from citing cases in the Wakilii corpus — a deterministic signal, not legal advice.

AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.

Holding

The High Court struck out the appeal as incompetent. The memorandum of appeal was registered without an extracted order. The subsequently filed extracted order was dated eight days after the memorandum, creating uncertainty about which order was being appealed. Following Yowana Yakuze v Victoria Nakabembe, failure to extract a formal decree or order before filing an appeal is a jurisdictional defect that cannot be waived and renders the appeal incompetent.

Outcome

Appeal struck out as incompetent with costs to the respondent

Facts

The appellant filed a memorandum of appeal on 23rd June 1995 against a ruling/order of a Magistrate Grade 1 at Mbarara delivered on 19th June 1995 in Civil Suit No. 34/94. The memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by an extract of the order being appealed. An extracted order was later filed, dated 27th June 1995, eight days after the memorandum was registered. The discrepancy in dates created uncertainty as to which order was actually being appealed.

Issues

  1. Whether the appeal was competent given that the memorandum of appeal was not accompanied by a proper extract of the order appealed from.

Orders

  • Appeal struck out as incompetent.
  • Costs awarded to the respondent.

Rules and key headnotes

Civil Procedure — Appeals — Competence — Requirement to Extract Formal Order Before Filing Appeal
Failure to extract a formal decree or order before filing an appeal is a defect going to the jurisdiction of the court and cannot be waived. Such failure renders the appeal incompetent.
Civil Procedure — Appeals — Constitutional Power to Disregard Technicalities — Limits
Even where Article 126(2)(e) of the Constitution empowers courts to administer justice without undue regard to technicalities, a court will not overlook fundamental procedural defects such as uncertainty about which order is being appealed from.

Legislation cited (2)

Cases cited (1)

  • Yowana Yakuze v Victoria Nakabembe [1988-1990] HCB 138

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

Full judgment

↓ Download PDF

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.

Vicent Kafureka v Yowana Katorobo (Civil Appeal No.12 Of 1995) (Civil Appeal No.12 of 1995) [2002] UGHC 79 (15 November 2002)
Source: this page presents Wakilii’s issue analysis and metadata for a publicly reported Ugandan judgment. Any AI-generated summary is marked as such. Judgment text is sourced from the Uganda Legal Information Institute (ulii.org). Wakilii is not affiliated with ULII.